Amazon.com Services, LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc.

Summary

The Ninth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction that restricted Perplexity AI's use of its Comet browser and Assistant on Amazon.com, holding that Amazon was unlikely to show that Perplexity accessed Amazon's computers under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. The court also concluded that the remaining preliminary-injunction factors did not favor Amazon and remanded for further proceedings. The opinion limited its holding to the meaning of access under those statutes on the record presented.

Holdings

1. On the record and narrow facts presented, Amazon was unlikely to succeed in proving the CFAA's access element because the user, not Perplexity, accessed Amazon's computers with the Assistant's help.
2. Amazon was unlikely to succeed on its CDAFA claim because, even assuming the statute's definition of access is broader than the CFAA's, the user rather than Perplexity accessed Amazon using the Assistant as a tool.
3. The district court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction because Amazon was unlikely to succeed on the merits, the potential harms did not favor an injunction, the balance of equities favored Perplexity, and an injunction was not in the public interest.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Amazon was likely to succeed on its CFAA claim by showing that Perplexity, through the Comet Assistant, intentionally accessed Amazon's protected computers.
2. Whether Amazon was likely to succeed on its CDAFA claim by showing that Perplexity accessed or caused unauthorized access to Amazon's computers.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in finding that the preliminary-injunction factors favored Amazon.

Disposition

vacated